The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861: A Charter of Freedom or an Act of Betrayal? | History Today The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861: A Charter of Freedom or an Act of Betrayal? Russia Civil Rights , Social Michael Lynch takes a fresh look at the key reform of 19th-century Russia. In 1861 serfdom, the system which tied the Russian peasants irrevocably to their landlords, was abolished at the Tsar’s imperial command. Four years later, slavery in the USA was similarly declared unlawful by presidential order. Tsar Alexander II (1855-81) shared with his father, Nicholas I, a conviction that American slavery was inhumane. This is not as hypocritical as it might first appear. The serfdom that had operated in Russia since the middle of the seventeenth century was technically not slavery. The landowner did not own the serf. This contrasted with the system in the USA where the negro slaves were chattels; that is, they were regarded in law as the disposable property of their masters. In Russia the traditional relationship between lord and serf was based on land.

It was because he lived on his land that the serf was bound to the lord. The Russian system dated back to 1649 and the introduction of a legal code which had granted total authority to the landowner to control the life and work of the peasant serfs who lived on his land. Since this included the power to deny the serf the right to move elsewhere, the difference between slavery and serfdom in practice was so fine as to be indistinguishable. The purpose behind the granting of such powers to the Russian dvoriane (nobility of landowners) in 1649 had been to make the nobles dependent on, and therefore loyal to, the tsar. They were to express that loyalty in practical form by serving the tsar as military officers or public officials. In this way the Romanov emperors built up Russia’s civil bureaucracy and the armed services as bodies of public servants who had a vested interest in maintaining the tsarist state. The serfs made up just over a third of the population and formed half of the peasantry. They were most heavily concentrated in the central and western provinces of Russia. Why was it necessary to end Serfdom?

In a number of respects serfdom was not dissimilar to the feudalism that had operated in many parts of pre-modern Europe. However, long before the 19th century, the feudal system had been abandoned in western Europe as it moved into the commercial and industrial age. Imperial Russia underwent no such transition. It remained economically and socially backward. Nearly all Russians acknowledged this. Some, known as slavophiles, rejoiced, claiming that holy Russia was a unique God-inspired nation that had nothing to learn from the corrupt nations to the west. But many Russians, of all ranks and classes, had come to accept that reform of some kind was unavoidable if their nation was to progress. It became convenient to use serfdom to explain all Russia’s current weaknesses: it was responsible for military incompetence, food shortages, over population, civil disorder, industrial backwardness. These were oversimplified explanations but there some truth in all of them: serfdom was symptomatic of the underlying difficulties that held Russia back from progress.It was, therefore, a particularly easy target for the intelligentsia, those intellectuals who in their writings argued for the liberalising of Russian society, beginning with the emancipation of the exploited peasants.

As often happened in Russian history, it was war that forced the issue. The Russian state had entered the Crimean War in 1854 with high hopes of victory. Two years later it suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of the Allied armies of France, Britain and Turkey. The shock to Russia was profound. The nation had always prided itself on its martial strength. Now it had been humiliated. Alexander II’s Role By an odd twist of fate, defeat in the war proved of value to the new Tsar. Although he had been trained for government from an early age, foreign observers had remarked on how diffident and unsure he appeared. The war changed all that. Coming to the throne in 1855 in the middle of the conflict, Alexander II was unable to save Russia from military failure, but the humiliation convinced him that, if his nation was to have stability and peace at home and be honoured abroad, military and domestic reforms were vitally necessary. The first step on that path would be the removal of serfdom, whose manifest inefficiency benefited neither lord, peasant, nor nation. Alexander declared that, despite Russia’s defeat, the end of the war marked a golden moment in the nation’s history.

Now was the hour when every Russian, under the protection of the law, could begin to enjoy ‘the fruits of his own labours’. Alexander was right in thinking the time was propitious. It had long been appreciated that some land reform was necessary. To the social and economic arguments were now added powerful military ones. The army was the great symbol of Russia’s worth. As long as its army remained strong Russia could afford to ignore its backwardness as a nation. But the Crimean defeat had undermined this notion of Russia’s invincibility. Few now had reasoned objections to reform. Serfdom was manifestly not working. It had failed to provide the calibre of soldier Russia needed. So it was that in 1856, the second year of his reign, Alexander II (1855- 81) announced to the nobles of Russia that ‘the existing condition of owning souls cannot remained unchanged. It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below’. These words have often been quoted.

What is less often cited is his following sentence: ‘I ask you, gentlemen, to figure out how all this can be carried out to completion.’ Alexander was determined on emancipation, but he shrewdly judged that – by making over to the landowners the responsibility for detailing how this was to be done – he had made it very difficult for them either to resist his command or to blame him if their plans were subsequently shown to be faulty. This was evidence of the remarkable power and influence that the tsar exercised as absolute ruler. Over the next five years, thousands of officials sitting in a range of committees drafted plans for the abolition of serfdom. When their work was done they presented their proposals to Alexander who then formally issued them in an Imperial Proclamation. When it was finally presented, in 1861, the Emancipation statute, which accompanied the Proclamation, contained 22 separate measures whose details filled 360 closely printed pages of a very large volume.

Alexander declared that the basic aim of emancipation was to satisfy all those involved in serfdom, serfs and land owners alike: Called by Divine Providence We vowed in our hearts to fulfil the mission which is entrusted to Us and to surround with Our affection and Our Imperial solicitude all Our faithful subjects of every rank and condition. Betrayal of the Peasants? Impressive though these freedoms first looked, it soon became apparent that they had come at a heavy price for the peasants. It was not they, but the landlords, who were the beneficiaries. This should not surprise us: after, it had been the dvoriane who had drafted the emancipation proposals. The compensation that the landowners received was far in advance of the market value of their property. They were also entitled to decide which part of their holdings they would give up. Unsurprisingly, they kept the best land for themselves. The serfs got the leftovers. The data shows that the landlords retained two-thirds of the land while the peasants received only one-third. So limited was the supply of affordable quality land to the peasants that they were reduced to buying narrow strips that proved difficult to maintain and which yielded little food or profit.

Moreover, while the landowners were granted financial compensation for what they gave up, the peasants had to pay for their new property. Since they had no savings, they were advanced 100 per cent mortgages, 80 per cent provided by the State bank and the remaining 20 by the landlords. This appeared a generous offer, but as in any loan transaction the catch was in the repayments. The peasants found themselves saddled with redemption payments that became a lifelong burden that then had to be handed on to their children. The restrictions on the peasants did not end there. To prevent emancipation creating too much disruption, the government urged the peasants to remain in their localities. This was easy to achieve since, for obvious reasons, the great majority of the ex-serfs bought their allotments of land from the estates where they were already living. It was also the case that the land available for purchase came from a stock of land granted to the village and was then sold on to individual peasants. A further aid to the authorities in maintaining control was the reorganisation of local government, which was one of the key reforms that followed in the wake of emancipation.

The government, through its land ‘commandants’ (officials appointed to oversee emancipation) insisted that the mir (the village commune) become the focus of life in the countryside. The motive was not cultural but administrative. The mir would provide an effective organisation for the collection of taxes to which the freed serfs were now liable; it would also be a controlling mechanism for keeping order in the countryside. Arguably, after 1861, the freed Russian peasant was as restricted as he had been when a serf. Instead of being tied to the lord, the peasant was now tied to the village. What all this denoted was the mixture of fear and deep distaste that the Russian establishment traditionally felt towards the peasantry. Often contemptuously referred to as the ‘dark masses’, the peasants were seen as a dangerous force that had to be kept down. Beneath the generous words in which Emancipation had been couched was a belief that the common people of Russia, unless controlled and directed, were a very real threat to the existing order of things. Whatever emancipation may have offered to the peasants, it was not genuine liberty.

The Significance of Emancipation Emancipation proved the first in a series of measures that Alexander produced as a part of a programme that included legal and administrative reform and the extension of press and university freedoms. But behind all these reforms lay an ulterior motive. Alexander II was not being liberal for its own sake. According to official records kept by the Ministry of the Interior (equivalent to the Home Office in Britain) there had been 712 peasant uprisings in Russia between 1826 and 1854. By granting some of the measures that the intelligentsia had called for, while in fact tightening control over the peasants, Alexander intended to lessen the social and political threat to the established system that those figures frighteningly represented. Above all, he hoped that an emancipated peasantry, thankful for the gifts that a bountiful tsar had given them, would provide physically fitter and morally worthier recruits for Russia’s armies, the symbol and guarantee of Russia’s greatness as a nation. There is a sense in which the details of Emancipation were less significant than the fact of the reform itself.

Whatever its shortcomings, emancipation was the prelude to the most sustained programme of reform that imperial Russia had yet experienced (see the Timeline). There is also the irony that such a sweeping move could not have been introduced except by a ruler with absolute powers; it could not have been done in a democracy. The only comparable social change of such magnitude was President Lincoln’s freeing of the negro slaves in 1865. But, as a modern Russian historian (Alexander Chubarov, The Fragile Empire, New York, 1999, p.75) has provocatively pointed out: ‘the [Russian] emancipation was carried out on an infinitely larger scale, and was achieved without civil war and without devastation or armed coercion’. Yet when that achievement has been duly noted and credited, hindsight suggests that emancipation was essentially a failure. It raised expectations and dashed them. Russia gave promise of entering a new dawn but then retreated into darkness. This tends to suggest that Alexander II and his government deliberately set out to betray the peasants. This was certainly the argument used by radical critics of the regime. It is important to consider, however, that land reform always takes time to work. It can never be a quick fix.

Alexander’s prime motive in introducing emancipation was undoubtedly the desire to produce results that were beneficial to his regime. But this is not to suggest that he was insincere in his wish to elevate the condition of the peasants. Where he can be faulted is in his failure to push reform far enough. The fact is that Alexander II suffered from the besetting dilemma that afflicted all the reforming tsars from Peter the Great onwards - how to achieve reform without damaging the interests of the privileged classes that made up imperial Russia. It was a question that was never satisfactorily answered because it was never properly faced. Whenever their plans did not work out or became difficult to achieve, the Romanovs abandoned reform and resorted to coercion and repression. Emancipation was intended to give Russia economic and social stability and thus prepare the way for its industrial and commercial growth. But it ended in failure. It both frightened the privileged classes and disappointed the progressives. It went too far for those slavophiles in the court who wanted Russia to cling to its old ways and avoid the corruption that came with western modernity. It did not go far enough for those progressives who believed that a major social transformation was needed in Russia. There is a larger historical perspective.

It is suggested by many historians that, for at least a century before its collapse in the Revolution of 1917, imperial Russia had been in institutional crisis; the tsarist system had been unable to find workable solutions to the problems that faced it. If it was to modernise itself, that is to say if it was to develop its agriculture and industry to the point where it could sustain its growing population and compete on equal terms with its European and Asian neighbours and international competitors, it would need to modify its existing institutions. This it proved unable or unwilling to do. Therein lies the tragedy of Emancipation. It is an outstanding example of tsarist ineptitude. Its introduction held out the possibility that Russia could build on this fundamentally progressive measure and modify its agricultural economy in such a manner as to cater for its vast population, which doubled to 125 million during the second half of the 19th century. But the chance was lost. So reduced was the peasant as an agricultural worker by 1900 that only half of his meagre income came from farming. He had to sustain himself by labouring.

So much for Alexander II’s claim that he viewed the task of improving the condition of the peasants as ‘a sacred inheritance’ to which he was honour bound. Issues to Debate To what extent did defeat in the Crimean War provide Alexander II with an ideal opportunity to introduce major reforms? In what ways were the Russian peasants better off because of Emancipation, in what ways worse off? Do you accept the view that the Emancipation of the Serfs was symptomatic of the unwillingness of the tsarist system to embrace much needed root and branch reform? What social structure was abolished in Russia in 1861? What social structure was abolished in Russia in 1861? What social structure was abolished in Russia in 1861? Russian serfdom was abolished in 1861 Expert answered| selymi |Points 9746| What social structure was abolished in Russia in 1861? New answers There are no new answers. Comments Weegy: Where are the list of possible answers? (More) Question The end of Soviet censorship has allowed Russians to enjoy a wider variety of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Added 12/7/2015 8:38:55 PM Weegy: 2x^2 - 10x + 8 = 2(x - 1)(x - 4) User: Factor p 2 - 2p - 24. (p - 3)(p + 8) (p + 6)(p - 4) (p - 6)(p + 4) ... 1/19/2017 9:59:50 AM| 2 Answers Weegy: The answer for x^2 + 29x - 30 = (x - 1)(x + 30) User: What is the product of (n - 8)(n + 2)? User: ... 1/19/2017 11:21:30 AM| 2 Answers Weegy: 5x^4 - 30x^2 - 135 = 5 (x^2+3) (x-3) (x+3) User: Factor a 3 - 3 + 3a 2 - a.

Weegy: a^3 - 3 + 3a^2 - a = ... 1/19/2017 1:18:35 PM| 2 Answers 1861 Serfdom is abolished in Russia 1861 A crowd in Warsaw - EURO - AP 1861 Serfdom is abolished in Russia. 1861 A crowd in Warsaw protesting Russian rule over Poland is ±red upon by Russian troops killing ±ve protesters. This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version. View Full Document 1875 Treaty of Saint Petersburg is signed between Japan and Russia. 1877 War between Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Russo-Turkish War), leading to the formation of Bulgaria in 1878. See Russian Foreign Affairs after the Crimean War. 1877 usso-Turkish War, 1877 1879 Russia and the United Kingdom sign the Treaty of Gandamak establishing an Afghan state. 1880 First successful test of an electric Tram in the world takes place in St. Petersburg, Russia.

1887 The Reinsurance Treaty is closed between Germany and Russia. 1891 Famine in Russia 1891 France and Russia conclude defensive allian 1892 Sergei Witte replaces Ivan Vyshnegradsky as Russian ±nance minister. 1894 Russian Tsar Alexander III dies and is succeeded by his son Nicholas II. 1900 Russia responds to international pressure to free Finland by tightening imperial control over the country. 1900 Russia invades Manchuria 1904 Russo-Japanese War: Russian troops in Korea retreat toward Manchuria followed by 100,000 Japanese troops. 1904 Russian Baltic Fleet ±res on British trawlers it mistakes for Japanese torpedo boats in the North Sea, in what would be known as the Dogger Bank incident. 1905 Russo-Japanese War: The Russian Army surrenders at 1905 Massacre of Russian demonstrators at the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg, one of the triggers of the abortive Russian Revolution of 1905.

1905 Russian troops begin to retreat from Mukden, Manchuria after losing 100,000 troops in 3 days. 1905 Russo-Japanese War: Treaty of Portsmouth signed - In New Hampshire a treaty mediated by US President Theodore Roosevelt, is signed by victor Japan and defeated party Russia. In the agreement, Russia cedes the island of Sakhalin and port and rail rights in Manchuria to Japan. 1905 Tsar Nicholas II is forced to grant Russia's Frst constitution, conceding a national assembly (Duma) with limited powers. 1906 the ±undamental Laws are announced at the Frst state Duma in Tzarist Russia. 1907 The new Duma is opened in St. Petersburg, Russia and 40,000 demonstrators had to be dispersed by Russian troops. 1913 Outpouring of monarchist sentiment in Russia when the House of Romanov celebrate the 300th anniversary of their succession to the throne 1914 Germany declares war on Russia, following Russia's military mobilization in support of Serbia.

1914 London Agreement - no member of Triple Entente (Britain, ±rance, or Russia) may seek a separate peace with Central Powers. 1914 World War I: Ottoman warships shell Russian Black Sea ports: Russia, ±rance, and Britain declare war on November 1-5. 1915 World War I: Germany uses poison gas against Russians. 1915 Britain, ±rance and Russia agree to give Constantinople and the Bosporus to Russia in case of victory (the treaty is later nulliFed by the Bolshevik revolution) 1917 October Revolution begins: The workers of St. Petersburg in Russia, led by the Bolsheviks and the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, attacked the ineffective Kerensky This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version. What social structure was abolished in Russia in 1861? What social structure was abolished in Russia in 1861? The social structure abolished in Russia in 1861 was Serfdom. Expert answered| Jay901 |Points 2149| What social structure was abolished in Russia in 1861? New answers There are no new answers.

Comments Weegy: -54 + 18 = -36 User: Simplify 3(x - 4) + 8(x + 2) User: What is the equation of the line that passes through ... 1/17/2017 1:07:03 PM| 5 Answers Weegy: r(r+3) = 1 User: 5x + 2y = 20, when x = 0.3? User: What is the value of a in the equation 3a + b = 54, when b ...

1/17/2017 9:50:12 AM| 3 Answers Weegy: 5|7 - 9| - 2; 5(2) - 2; 10 - 2 = 8 User: Evaluate |a + b - c|, given a = 5, b = -3, and c = -2 1/16/2017 5:07:37 PM| 2 Answers Weegy: 5 - 3x when x = -7 5 - 3(-7); = 5 - (-21); = 5 + 21; = 26 User: Evaluate 5|7 - 9| - 2 User: Evaluate |6| ...

1/16/2017 5:09:01 PM| 2 Answers 1861: Serfdom Abolished in Russia – Around 23 Million People Gain their Freedom | History.info 1861: Serfdom Abolished in Russia – Around 23 Million People Gain their Freedom Photo Credit To Serfdom was abolished in the Russian Empire on this day in 1861. Around 23 million people thus gained their freedom. The declaration of the abolishment of serfdom was enacted in the time of Russian emperor Alexander II, who was given the nickname “The Liberator” due to this (Russian: Алекса́ндр Освободитель). Alexander II was the grandfather of the last Russian emperor, Nicholas II, who was killed by the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution. Russia was one of the last European countries to abolish serfdom. However, it is interesting that the Russian Empire abolished serfdom before the USA abolished slavery.

Namely, the American Civil War, which was in good part fought around the question of slavery, began only around one month after serfdom was abolished in Russia (in the same year, 1861). Facebook Comments Serfs Emancipated: 1861 Back to Imperial Russia Chronology Great Britain and France entered the two year Crimean War against Russia in 1854. The result left Russia very open and weak because the country was grossly underdeveloped when compared to most major civilizations of the time. For example, Russia's military was frail because it almost entirely consisted of serfs, who were forced to serve in it. France and Great Britain, on the other hand, did not require its citizens to participate in the armed forces unwillingly. After this conflict, it was also evident that Russia's bureaucracy was filled with corruption and insufficient organization. Furthermore, "At the root of all the weaknesses and abuses was the supreme evil of serfdom." [1] In short, in order for Russia to regain her strength, serfdom must be abolished.

The first step Alexander II took in the process of reforming serfdom was to appoint a committee to identify possible solutions to this complex situation; this committee was formed in 1857. After two years of committee meetings, a body called the Editorial Commission was formed to define the best solution to the following problems: "first, how much land was to be given to the peasants and on what terms, and secondly, what kind of administrative authority was to take the place of the powers of the serf-owning landlord." [2] Early in 1861 a piece of legislation freeing the serfs was approved and quickly passed into law. The serfs were free, yet were not given land. If the serf desired to own land, he would be delegated a small portion of property which he had to pay for. Since the war was not devastating, no major overthrow in the government's administration came about directly. Freeing the serfs did little to give them real freedom, as they had little or no money to buy the inadequate amount of land provided for them to purchase. Additionally, brutality was continued towards the serfs for years to come.

Yet, despite all of this, "It was inevitable that the major reform should bring great changes in administration, army and judiciary." [3] [1]Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 331 [2] Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 341 [3] Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 348 Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) Vera Brovido, Apostils into Terrorists (Great Britain; Billing and Sons ltd, 1978) W. E.

Mosse, Alexander II and the Modernization of Russia ( New York; The Macmillan Company, 1958) Researched and Written by: Emancipation of The Serfs | History of Russia Emancipation of The Serfs Russian Empire | 2 | The 1861 Emancipation of Russian Serfs was the single most important reform of the reign of Tsar Alexander II. As a consequence, it is taught widely on Russian history courses around the world (particularly A-Level History courses in the UK – I know, because I did the course myself, long ago!). This article gives a brief overview of serfdom in Russia prior to the emancipation, the reasons for emancipation and its impact on Russian politics. What is serfdom? But first, before thinking about history, it’s important to answer the simple question of – what is a serf? Russian History - Books we Recommend 1. Or click here to see more books about Russian history A serf is a peasant who lives under the political system of feudalism – they aren’t just unique to Russia but were found across Europe throughout the middle ages.

The peasant is almost, but not quite, a slave, tied to the land of a landowner who also owns the right to that peasant’s existence. As well as working on their landowner’s land (on the fields, in his mines, in his factories), they could rent a small patch of land on which they could practice subsistence farming to provide for their own needs. History of Russian Serfdom Serfdom in Russia developed gradually over many centuries. Historians usually trace the root of Russian serfdom to the 11th century, but it only began to fully establish itself after the introduction of the Sobornoye Ulozhenie (Law Code) in 1649 by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich which first legally tied serfs to Russian estates. Shortly after, in 1658 it was made illegal for serfs to flee their estates and this really entrenched them in their lowly position in Russian society. Slavery was also legal in Russia until 1723, when it was abolished by Peter the Great. The lot of slaves was not greatly improved, though –the vast majority simply became serfs.

By the middle of the 19th century, around half of all Russian peasants were privately owned serfs. Other Russian peasants mostly worked on land owned by the state – nominally they were freer, but in reality they remained serfs. Emancipation of the Serfs Listening to the Emancipation Proclamation Alexander II was one of Russia’s more liberal leaders. He recognised that Russia’s feudal system – long since abandoned by Western European powers – was a liability. Russia’s weakness had been demonstrated by its defeat in the Crimean War, in which its armies of conscripted serfs had been regularly outmatched by the volunteer armies of France and Great Britain. The war effort had also been hampered because Russia’s largely agricultural society was unable to compete with the industrialised Empires of Western Europe. After a number of committees had considered the matter, Alexander published his Emancipation Manifesto in March 1861. The Manifesto was quickly turned into law, and all privately owned serfs were given the right to become free citizens, free to marry, own land and their own businesses. Those tied to the land were entitled to buy the land they had previously leased, but not at a very good rate.

Naturally, the land that serfs were allowed to buy was usually of poor quality – the best land was held back by landowners for themselves. And to add insult to injury the newly free serfs paid, on average, more than a third over the market rate for their land – some paid almost double the market rate. They paid for their land with money loaned to them by the Government, and were required to repay it over 49 years. The redemption payments caused considerable hardship – many simply sold their land back to their previous landlords to cover their debts – until they were finally abolished in 1907. State owned serfs were given a similar emancipation package five years later, in 1866. The terms of their deal were less onerous, however, and they usually received larger plots of land. Impact of the Emancipation of the Serfs In the short term, emancipation had a positive impact on Russia, and Russian economic growth ran at an average of 4.6% between 1860 and 1900 , speeding up over the years.

An increase in commercial farming had a dramatic impact on Russia’s agricultural sector, and the changing nature of the working and middle classes led to an increase in the number of people qualified to take on management roles in factories and industry, increasing productivity there. The serfs’ change in status also led to a much more vibrant commercial market in Russia, as serfs were freer to make more purchasing decisions on their own. The changes also altered the dynamic of Russian society in ways that led to social unrest. The heavy burden of redemption payments caused a great deal of resentment among peasants in rural Russia. In addition, the boom in Russian industry led to a rise in the population of cities and harsh working conditions fermented radicalisation among the industrial workforce. It is fair to say, therefore, that the emancipation of the serfs in Russia was a factor in the unrest that led to both the 1905 Russian revolution and the 1917 Russian Revolutions. Not the only factor, certainly, but significant enough to be notable. Share: Russian Serfs Russian Serfs ▼ Primary Sources ▼ Russian Serfs Serfdom was not the original status of the Russian peasant .

It was one of the consequences of the Tartar devastation during the 13th century when peasants became homeless and settled on the land of wealthy Russians. By the end of the 16th century the Russian peasant came under the complete control of the landowner and during the middle of the 17th century serfdom became hereditary. Their situation became comparable to that of slaves and they could be sold to another landowner in families or singly. By the 19th century it was estimated that about 50 per cent of the 40,000,000 Russian peasants were serfs. Most of these were the property of the nobility but large numbers were owned by the Tsar and religious foundations. The Crimean War made Alexander II realize that Russia was no longer a great military power. His advisers argued that Russia's serf-based economy could no longer compete with industrialized nations such as Britain and France. Alexander now began to consider the possibility of bringing an end to serfdom in Russia.

The nobility objected to this move but as Alexander told a group of Moscow nobles: "It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below. In 1861 Alexander issued his Emancipation Manifesto that proposed 17 legislative acts that would free the serfs in Russia. Alexander announced that personal serfdom would be abolished and all peasants would be able to buy land from their landlords. The State would advance the the money to the landlords and would recover it from the peasants in 49 annual sums known as redemption payments. (1) Stephen Graham , Alexander II (1935) To give the land (to the serfs) meant to ruin the nobility, and to give freedom without land meant to ruin the peasantry. The state treasury impoverished by the vast expenses of war, could not afford to indemnify either party. There lay the problem. Could the serfs made to pay for their freedom? Could the serf-owners be granted loans on the security of their estates? Would not twenty-two million slaves suddenly set free combine to take matters into their own hands. The position of most large landowners was this. They lived in St.

Petersburg or some other great city. They did not farm their estates. They had stewards who administered their property and collected their revenue. They had numbers of serfs paying a handsome annual tribute for their partial freedom, a tribute which the landowners' agents strove incessantly to increase. It was their slaves rather than their land which brought them income. (2) Victor Serge , From Serfdom to Proletarian Revolution (1930) From 1840 onwards, the need for serious reform does begin to be apparent: agricultural production is poor, grain exports low, the growth of manufacturing industry slowed down through the shortage of labour; capitalist development is being impeded through aristocracy and serfdom. It is a perilous situation, which is given a fairly astute solution in the act of "liberation" of 19th February 1861, abolishing serfdom. With a population of sixty-seven million, Russia had twenty-three million serfs belonging to 103,000 landlords.

The arable land which the freed peasantry had to rent or buy was valued at about double its real value (342 million roubles instead of 180 million); yesterday's serfs discovered that, in becoming free, they were now hopelessly in debt. Peasant Life and Serfdom under Tsarist Russia | Guided History Peasant Life and Serfdom under Tsarist Russia A caricature of Russian serfs Introduction Serfdom in Europe can be traced back to the 11th century. This type of feudalism spanned throughout Europe, declining in Western Europe around the 14th century with the Renaissance, but increasing in Central and Eastern Europe, a phenomenon sometimes known as “later serfdom.” Until it was abolished in 1861, serfs -as they were known- in Russia were bonded to their masters in a certain type of modified slavery. Known as the Russian Empire, a term coined by Peter I the Great, this time period is an era of reform for the peasant serfs in the Russian countryside.

In this research guide, the period of time attempted to be covered is between 1721, at the beginning of what is know as the Russian Empire, and the year 1861, when under the rule of czar Alexander II serfdom was abolished. "A Peasant Leaving His Landlord on Yuri's Day," painting by Sergei V. Ivanov. Many elements influenced this turn of events for serfs, from Enlightenment ideas that found their way into the Russian crown to general apathy towards American slavery at the time. Nevertheless, this research guide does not focus mainly on the end of serfdom, but on compiling information about the lives of peasant serfs before the year 1861. The main purpose of this page is to compile information, primary sources, and historical analysis that presents Russian peasants as socio-economic beings, whose lives -otherwise seen as insignificant- made the pages of history and influenced the writings of literary circles at the time. Agricultural Economy in Rural Russia Serfdom, as any form of feudalism, was based on an agrarian economy. Day after day, serfs worked the land of their lords, barely leaving time to cultivate the land allotted to them to take care of their family.

The lord’s land was divided by the peasant commune (obshchina or mir), into large fields worked on a rotation crop system. Each field was divided into strips and each family given so many strips in each field according either to the number of male workers in the family or the number of mouths to feed. It was this control of “their” land which led to the mistaken, but deep-rooted peasant belief that “we belong to the masters but the land is ours.” G. Myasoyedov. "Harvesting." 1887. “The Russian Agrarian Question” from The Russian Peasantry: Their Agrarian Condition, Social Life, and Religion While a rather old source, Kravchisnskii’s book chapter “The Russian Agrarian Question” can provide the reader a good overview on Russian agriculture under serfdom. The interested reader and/or researcher can find a fairly deep analysis on the economical validity of serfdom and cash crops.

One must keep in mind that this was chapter (and book) was written after the emancipation of serfdom, a period where many authors from different disciplines were very critical on the economic structure and very purpose of serfdom, while at the same time dealing with at term coined as “the peasant question.” Kravchinskii, Sergei M. “The Russian Agrarian Question.” The Russian Peasantry: Their Agrarian Condition, Social Life and Religion. 1888. Reprint, Westport, CT: Hyperion Press, Inc., 1967. 1-71. “The Peasant and the Village Commune” from The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia In this chapter of The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia, Francis M. Watters presents a picture of the world of the peasant cultivator and his deep relationship with the land he worked. The author of this chapter focuses on the village commune (obshchina or mir) as an institution that governed peasant life, assessing his obligations towards his land and his lord, and guarding his rights. Vucinich, Wayne S. “The Peasant and the Village Commune.” The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia.

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. 133-157. “Russian Agriculture in the Last 150 Years of Serfdom” (Journal Article) This article provides a rather complete economic history on the state of Russian agriculture. Spanning from the rule of Peter I to the rule of Alexander II, Blum provides a complex analysis on the statistics of crop cultivation, comparing Russian serf production to other areas of Europe. At the same time, the author gives a substantial portrayal of the poor technological conditions under which both serfs and half-free peasants had to work under, among other things. From this journal article, the reader will get a view of serfdom both from an agricultural and economic perspective. Blum, Jerome. “Russian Agriculture in the Last 150 Years of Serfdom.” Agricultural History 34, no. 1 (1960): 3-12.

“Peasants On the Move: State Standard Resettlement in Imperial Russia, 1805-1830s” (Journal Article) Part of the driving force of Russian agriculture was the constant migration of serfs/peasants, an action usually issued by the imperial government. In this article, Sunderland provides an analysis on government-issued reforms, forced migration patterns, and the impact these produced on peasant everyday-life, all this provided through analysis of archives of the time. Furthermore, one can be able to establish a connection between the needs of the state and how these affected serfs, both economically and socially. Sunderland, Willard. “Peasants On the Move: State Standard Resettlement in Imperial Russia, 1805-1830s.” Russian Review 52, no. 4 (1993): 472-485. “О причинах возникновения крепостничества в России” (Webpage Journal Article) Serfdom was a phenomenon that was not marked by specific historical catalysts.

On the contrary, different conditions of social life and the economy of the time came together to give way to this type of feudalism. In this article, by the journal Scepsis, Milov provides a long analysis in which he discusses certain socio-economic reasons for the surfacing of serf agriculture -and serfdom as an economic structure- in Russia. The source is in Russian. Милов, Леонид. “О причинах возникновения крепостничества в России.” Scepsis. (accessed November 25, 2012). “Peasant Communes and Economic Innovation” from Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800-1921 In this first chapter of the book, Kingston-Mann discusses in an essay the different economic models tried to put into use at peasant communes. While these “economic innovations” were experimentally put into practice during the 1870s and 1880s, these theoretical models were created during the years before emancipation.

More than dealing with the “peasant question,” Kingston-Mann shows how reformers dealt with productivity, economic backwardness, and peasant thinking on private -versus otherwise communal- property. Kingston-Mann, Esther, Timothy Mixter, and Jeffrey Burds. “Peasant Communes and Economic Innovation: A Preliminary Inquiry.” Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800-1921. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991. 23-51. Peasant Society and Politics The peasantry had a culture of its own, often very different to the French speaking and western educated one of their masters. This culture was based round village life, the seasons of the agricultural year, folklore and the church. Many historians, following commentators like Belinsky or Stepniak (Kravchinsky), have argued that the Orthodox church had little real impact on peasant life, apart from their carrying out the fasts and rituals, and that peasants were superstitious and illiterate and not genuinely religious.

Society and Life “The Peasant Way of Life” from The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia The Russian peasant way of life was full and abundant in its own way. In this essay, Mary Matossian provides a description of the peasant way of life under normal conditions around 1860, on the eve of emancipation. She covers various aspects of peasant life, like housing, economy, diet, fashion, family life, and village life. Vucinich, Wayne S. “The Peasant Way of Life.” The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. 1-40. “Micro-Perspectives on 19th-Century Russian Living Standards” (Work in Progress/Presentation) While this is a work in progress, Dennison and Nafzinger discuss the living standards of the Russian peasants in the countryside rather than in large cities, like Moscow and St. Petersburg, from a sociological point of view.

By using a rather representative village as their case study, they use this information to measure the living standards of the peasant in health, education, and other “non-market goods.” In their section “Pre-Emancipation Living Standards,” the authors take into accounts many factors (like serf accounts to their lords, demographics, wages) to present a picture of the quality of life of the Russian peasant during the time period this guide covers. Dennison Tracy, and Steve Nafzinger. “Micro-Perspectives on 19th-Century Russian Living Standards.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Social Science History Association, Chicago, IL, November 15-18, 2007. “Россия крепостная, история народного рабства” (Website) Translated as “Serfdom in Russia, the Story of National Slavery,” this is an anthology that compiles information on serf conditions and their relations with their lords. Tarasov manages to recollect different aspects of how serfdom came about, the conditions under which they had to live in, among other things.

The section to be pointed out would be Chapter 3 (“Усадьба и ее обитатели: дворяне и дворовые люди”,) where Tarasov presents the disparity between serf and lord, and how by emulating a Western culture the Russian elites managed to alienate the common peasantry. While the author covers a more broad time period of serfdom, this Westernization occurred during the time of Peter the Great, at the very inception of Imperial Russia. Тарасов, Борис. “Россия крепостная, история народного рабства.” Samlib. samlib.ru/a/ali_s/rabstwo.shtml (accessed November 24, 2012). “Everyday Forms of Resistance: Serf Opposition to Gentry Exactions” from Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics This article explores the validity of the concept of everyday resistance as a way to understand Russian serfdom. Rodney Bohac goes on to examine the actions of serfs living on an early-nineteenth-century Russian estate, through petitions and managerial reports sent from the estate to the absentee owner.

Furthermore, the author wants to show how peasants used forms of resistance -dissimulation, petty theft, work slowdowns, and flight- to mitigate the effects of money rent (obrok.) Bohac also presents how these forms of resistance did have effects on the production of crops during the 1810s and 1820s. Kingston-Mann, Esther, Timothy Mixter, and Jeffrey Burds. “Everyday Forms of Resistance: Serf Opposition to Gentry Exactions”. Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800-1921. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991. 236-260. Four Russian Serf Narratives This book gathers four narratives composed by Russian serfs, either during serfdom or after the emancipation of serfs. The stories are set chronologically in the book, all of experiences under serfdom. The first one, composed in 1785, relates the story of Nikolai Smirnov in his own words after being caught trying to escape his lord. The second story is more of poetic prose written by a anonymous peasant known as Petr O.

The third story comes from ex-serf Nikolai Shipov (1881), in which he accounts his attempts to escape from being bonded to a lord, and finally ending in his escape. The book ends with a story told from the perspective of an ex-serf woman, M. E. Vasilieva, in which he narrates her life as a girl under serfdom (1911). Besides being (conveniently) translated from Russian to English, this compilation offers first-hand accounts of serfs from different areas of the country and under different, individual conditions. MacKay, John. Four Russian Serf Narratives. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009. Life Under Russian Serfdom: The Memoirs of Savva Dmitrievich Purlevskii, 1800-1868 This is the memoir of Savva Dmitrievich Purlevskii, who wrote his life story after his death in 1868. In this book, he narrates his entire life, a man that lead a rather ordinary life as a serf.

This is a story of how he manages to escape serfdom to become a merchant, and these experiences are retrospectively told once he is outside of the village life and free from the hold of his lord. Purlevskii, Savva Dmitrievich, and Boris B. Gorshkov. A Life Under Russian Serfdom: Memoirs of Savva Dmitrievich Purlevskii, 1800-1868. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005. The Russian Museum (Website) This is the link for a small part of the folk art section of the Russian Museum of Art. Through their art, one can open yet another window into peasant-serf life in this time period. Peasants, Serfs, Soldiers Serfs, as it usually happened in a feudal system, could be conscripted and sent off to war by their lords. In fact, a male serf could be sent into the imperial army as punishment for “insubordination,” and the parameters for this charge were established by the individual serf lords.

In this segment tries to collected different sources that portray serfs as soldiers of Imperial Russia, collecting different media content and pieces of historical analysis. “The Peasant and the Army” from The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia While the majority of records compiling information about soldier conditions is from the years after 1905, the pre-reform army of the nineteenth century was rather different. In this essay, John S. Curtiss goes on to portray an image of a Russian army that was mostly composed of peasant-serfs. Unlike the Russian army troops that were controlled by the government during the 1900s, this peasant army was one composed of serfs that had strong aversion for the army, its harsh discipline, and brutal treatment, which usually resulted in desertions and suicides among serfs. Vucinich, Wayne S. “The Peasant and the Army.” The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. 108-132.

“ Отслужил солдат ” (“Soldiers Had Served the Czar”) A traditional Russian lament, and source of many different adaptation, this song portrays the story of an old soldier coming home after 25 years of serving the czar. As the lyrics show, when he returns to his home, he finds his beloved wife to be dead and the life he once had completely changed and ruined. Lyrics in both English and Russian provided. Translation of Lyrics to English: The soldier has served his harsh duty His patriotic duty, his hard duty Twenty years he served, and another five Before the general gave him his leave And the soldier went to familiar lands His chest full of medals, his hair all gray On the porch, his young wife sits As if twenty years had not gone by Not a wrinkle on her face Not a gray hair in her youthful braids Looked the soldier upon his wife And said the soldier these bitter words “Looks like you, my wife, have had a good life, had a good life, have not aged!” And she says to him from the porch, Says from the porch, eyes full of tears: “I am not your wife lawful, I am your daughter, orphaned.

Your wifе is in the cold ground, Under the birch tree, five years now.” And the soldier went, in the house he sat. Young wine, he asked to be brought. Drank all night, the soldier, down his cheeks either wine dripped, or maybe tears “Social Misfits: Veterans and Soldiers’ Families in Servile Russia” (Journal Article) In this article, Wirtschafter examines the relationship between military service and social categorization in Imperial Russia prior to the introduction of universal conscription in 1874. Focusing upon the lower military ranks and the role of service obligations and opportunities in blurring social boundaries it analyzes the ambiguous status of retired soldiers, soldiers’ wives,and the illegitimate children of the latter, with an eye toward the larger problem of social definition. Wirtschafter, Elise Kimerling. “Social Misfits: Veterans and Soldiers’ Families in Servile Russia.” The Journal of Military History 59, no. 2 (1995): 215-235.

“Russian Army of the Napoleonic Wars” (Website) The Napoleonic Wars were an event that marked the pages of Russian history during its 10-year period (1805-1815.) While in the large scale they marked the victory of Europe against Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of Waterloo, it also marked the lives of thousands of serfs-turned-soldiers. In this webpage, one can learn the hardships serfs had to withstand, and the discipline -among many other things- they had to undergo to serve czar, lord, and country. “Russian Army of the Napoleonic Wars.” Napolun. (accessed November 20, 2012). “Peasants in Uniform: The Tsarist Army as a Peasant Society” (Journal Article) While in this article Bushnell explores the condition of the peasant-soldier after the emancipation of serfdom, within his analysis one can see the continuing trend even after peasants no longer were bonded to a lord.

Religion and Belief “Popular Religion” from The Russian Peasantry In this section of the book, Kravchinskii raises the question: “Are the Russian peasants so very religious?” He claims for peasants to be “Christ-like,” following an idea of religion that includes “pan-human” morals rather than really having knowledge of the inner workings of Christian theology. The author mostly covers the Christian Orthodox peasantry. Kravchinskii, Sergei M. “Popular Religion.” The Russian Peasantry: Their Agrarian Condition, Social Life, and Religion. 1888. Reprint, Westport, CT: Hyperion Press, Inc., 1967. 208-235. “The Peasant and Religion” from The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia The etymology of the word for peasant in Russian -krest’ianin- is from the Old Russian word for “Christian.”While others argue that the Russian peasantry was persistently yet superficially religious, Donald W. Treadgold argues that there is not enough evidence to support this claim.

He, then, goes into a revision and analysis of the (scarce) literature on the subject, while going deep into Russian folk culture to show a more round and complete analysis of peasant religion. Vucinich, Wayne S. “The Peasant and Religion.” The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. 72-107. “Religion and Expressive Culture” (Website) This website provides a rather general view of peasant religion, rituals, and integration with everyday life. While it is not exactly complete, this website is a good starting point to learn about peasant religion, but it is recommended to complement this information with other books on the subject (see above). Peasant Women in Rural Society Vasiliy (William) Carrick. A Russian Beauty. 1870s. In an agrarian-based serf society, women were at a disadvantage. For the lords, serf women were seen as a commodity, a means for reproduction and increased revenue; their treatment as such was very similar to European treatment of African slaves, retarding the concept of “rights in persons” to benefit themselves through slave labor.

At the same time, serf women were subjugated in their own home, belonging to a patriarchy that also extended into the inner workings of serf society. “Empresses and Serfs, 1695-1855″ from A History of Women in Russia: From Earliest Times to the Present This segment of the book shows how attempts to bring with the emancipation of serfdom reforms for a more open attitude towards women in society failed. The question to have in mind while reading this would be if serfs had better conditions under “the Age of Empresses,” or if there was no difference at all. While it does not touch on the subject of serf women specifically, it is interesting to read and observe that serf-czar relationship. Clements, Barbara Evans. “Empresses and Serfs, 1695-1855.” A History of Women in Russia: From Earliest Times to the Present. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012. 64-111. “Victims or Actors?

Russian Peasant Women and Patriarchy” from Peasant Economy, Culture and Politics In this essay, Worobec paints a good picture of the rigidity of village patriarchy. In every sphere of serf social life, women were subjugated, following certain societal patterns based on preconceived notions of male and female roles. While marriage was compulsory, it was an event in a woman’s life that was both wanted and dreaded. Furthermore, this essay attempts to cover the different roles and aspects of a woman’s life in a peasant village, from matters like premarital chastity to the habit of wife beating. Kingston-Mann, Esther, Timothy Mixter, and Jeffrey Burds. “Victims or Actors? Russian Peasant Women and Patriarchy”. Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800-1921. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University 5Press, 1991. 177-206. Kateryna, painting of a Ukrainian serf girl by Taras Shevchenko himself born a serf.

“Widows and the Russian Serf Community” from Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation In this section, by Rofney D. Bohac, the reader can get a picture of the life of peasant widows. Bohac shows how both views of the widow contain truth: widows could be alone and vulnerable, but also managing a household by themselves. It was a matter whether she overcame the pressure of the patriarchal society in which she lived. The author also discusses a widow’s economic situation, property rights, and her living conditions. Clements, Barbara Evans, Barbara Alpern Engel, and Christine Worobec. “Widows and the Russian Serf Community.” Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. 95-112. “The Peasant Woman as Healer” from Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation This section of the book shows Russian women’s roles as healers and midwives, a tradition long before the appearance of professionalized medical practitioners in the Russian countryside. One can observe the kind of jobs peasant-serf women could have, and how they managed to do well in it.

Clements, Barbara Evans, Barbara Alpern Engel, and Christine Worobec. “The Peasant Woman as a Healer.” Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. 148-162. “Female Serfs in the Performing World” from Women in Russian Culture and Society, 1700-1825 In this essay, Richard Sites shows how peasant women could obtain a certain social mobility if they chose to become actresses. While they had to endure the social connotations of choosing this profession and the abuses of their owners, one can observe an outlet for serf women to escape their lives in the countryside, for better or for worse. Rosslyn, Wendy, and Alessandra Tosi (ed.). “Female Serfs in the Performing World.” In Women in Russian Culture and Society, 1700-1825. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 24-38. The End of Serfdom The abolition of serfdom was a turning point in Russian history.

The years that followed 1861, until the fall of the empire in 1917, are considered one of the most reformist years in Russian history. In one way or another, the emancipation of serfs opened the floodgates to the events leading to 1917 and its aftermath, giving these peasants more freedom to be organized. In this segment, while some background information is provided on important czars of the era for serfdom, Catherine II and Alexander II, the main focus is the collection of works analyzing the end of serfdom. Catherine II the Great (Екатерина II Великая) and the Enlightenment Despite the professed distaste of serfdom by Catherine II the Great and her enlightenment ideas, the institution expanded considerably under her reign. While Catherine continued to modernize Russia along Western European lines, military conscription and economy continued to depend on serfdom, and the increasing demands of the state and private landowners led to increased levels of reliance on serfs. This was one of the chief reasons behind several rebellions, including the large-scale Pugachev’s Rebellion of cossacks and peasants.

Alexander II the Liberator Under Alexander II ‘s rule, important changes were made in legislation. The existence of serfdom was tackled boldly, taking advantage of a petition presented by the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces and, hoping that their relations with the serfs might be regulated in a more satisfactory way, he authorized the formation of committees “for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,” and laid down the principles on which the amelioration was to be effected. The emancipation was not merely a humanitarian question capable of being solved instantaneously by imperial ukase. It contained very complicated problems, deeply affecting the economic, social, and political future of the nation. On 3 March 1861, 6 years after his accession, the emancipation law was signed and published. Emancipation of Serfdom in Russia Russian Peasants and Tsarist Legislation on the Eve of Reform: Interaction between Peasants and Officialdom, 1825-1855 A detailed examination of three cases, David Moon explores peasant interactions with the state during the last decades of serfdom.

One can see how peasants interpreted orders from those above them, and how -whether intentionally or unintentionally- they simply ignored imperial authority. Moon presents the idea of a “rational peasant” that was neither fooled nor (mis)guided by utopic ideas surfacing at the time, but rather an individual being just trying to survive in the conditions given to him. Moon, David. Russian Peasants and Tsarist Legislation on the Eve of Reform: Interaction Between Peasants and Officialdom, 1825-1855. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press, in association with the Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham, 1992. The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861 In this book, Field attempts to explain how an old system of bondage such as serfdom came to an end. Rather than focusing on the peasant, as other books in this research guide, this book focuses more on the other side of the coin: the nobility and the government.

Thus, The End of Serfdom goes deep into analyzing the reaction of nobles to this reform, and how Russian bureaucracy was changed because of the emancipation of serfs. Field, Daniel. The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976. “The Peasant and the Emancipation” from The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia In this essay, Terence Emmons provides an analysis to the events and conditions that gave way for czar Alexander II to abolish serfdom in Imperial Russia. At the same time, he discusses how the state coped with the lost of this massive economic income, and how lords in the countryside attempted to establish strong resistance against the changes imposed by the empire. Vucinich, Wayne S. “The Peasant and the Emancipation.” The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. 41-71.

Emancipation of the Russian Serfs This book, compiled by Emmons, presents a series of essays that can present to the reader a general idea of the atmosphere of the time when serfdom was abolished in Russia. Emancipation of the Russian Serfs provides the historical background for the period leading to emancipation, the economic background of the different objectives attempted to be achieved by the different social classes in play, the motives for reform, and the final results that came with that reform. Emmons, Terence. Emancipation of the Russian Serfs. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. “The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861: A Charter of Freedom or an Act of Betrayal?” (Web Journal Article) This link provides a general overview on the end of serfdom, Alexander II’s role, and the significance of emancipation. It is a good article because, while one can complement with information from other sources as the ones provided above, it also provides sources for further reading. "The Serf" ("Le Serf"), by Henri Matisse (1900-1903).

Representations in Literature As said before, peasant life served as inspirations for works of literature. Most of the literature during this time period criticized or satirized in some way the conditions of serfs and the socio-economic structure of serfdom. While many works of this time were censored, this section attempts to collect works that incorporated serfdom -and serfs as characters- into their plot. Works analyzing literature of the time and its use of peasants also appears in this segment. Nikolai Gogol — “ Dead Souls ” (Мёртвые души, 1842) Cover page of the first edition of "Dead Souls". Moscow, 1842. In the Russian Empire, before 1861, landowners could buy, sell, or mortgage their serfs. To count serfs (and people in general), the measure word “soul” was used. The plot of the novel relies on “dead souls” (i.e., “dead serfs”) which are still accounted for in property registers. This story follows the exploits of Chichikov, a gentleman of middling social class and position.

Chichikov arrives in a small town and quickly tries to make a good name for himself by impressing the many petty officials of the town. Despite his limited funds, he spends extravagantly on the premise that a great show of wealth and power at the start will gain him the connections he needs to live easily in the future. He also hopes to befriend the town so that he can more easily carry out his bizarre and mysterious plan to acquire “dead souls.” Online English version of the text is provided. Alexandr Nikolayevich Radishchev — “Journey From St. Petersburg to Moscow” (Путешествие из Петербурга в Москву, 1790) Title page from the first edition, 1790. This book is Radishchev’s most famous, even though it was banned and he himself was exiled to Siberia. Often described as a Russian Uncle Tom’s Cabin, it is a polemical study of the problems in the Russia of Catherine the Great: serfdom, the powers of the nobility, the issues in government and governance, social structure, and personal freedom and liberty.

In the book, Radishchev takes an imaginary journey between Russia’s two principal cities; each stop along the way reveals particular problems for the traveler through the medium of story telling. Published during the period of the French Revolution, the book borrows ideas and principles from the great philosophers of the day relating to an enlightened outlook and the concept of Natural Law. Nikolai Karamzin — “Poor Liza” (Бедная Лиза, 1792) Known as one of the best exponents of Russian sentimentalism, “Poor Liza” is the story of a peasant girl that is seduced by a gentleman, whom which she falls in love with, only to be later abandoned. In the end, her heartbreak results in her suicide. Although Karamzin presents an idealized version of a serf, in particular of a peasant woman, it nevertheless shows the influence the lower classes had on character formation and literature. While critics say that the portrayal not as realistic, or even critical, as Radishchev, Karamzin sure presents another view on serfs by a higher strata of Russian society.

Leo Tolstoy — “ Anna Karenina ” ( Анна Каренина , 1878) Cover page of the first volume of "Anna Karenina". Moscow, 1878. This story is set “in the time of the masters” (i.e. under serfdom.) Under barshchina the normal arrangement was for the lord’s land to be divided with an area set aside as demesne or landlord area to be farmed by the peasants, but under whatever orders the landlord laid down. This could mean if, like Tolstoy himself, the landlord was a progressive farmer, that the land was enclosed and machinery could be brought in and new seeds developed. Such a landlord might also introduce schools and other facilities on the estate and try to educate the peasantry in western farming methods. Levin in Anna Karenina is based on Tolstoy’s own experience and shows how difficult such projects could be. The rest of the farm would be handed over to the peasants for their own use. Russian and English versions of the text provided.

“The Peasant in Literature” from The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia In this segment of the book, Donald Fanger discusses the appearance of peasants in literature of the 19th century. The author of this essay argues that it is difficult -if not almost impossible- to find literature of the time that gives a truthful depiction of peasant life; rather, authors of the time worked of stereotypes and commonplace conventions, even those who came from peasant backgrounds. Fanger discusses works of authors like Radishchev, Karamzin, Tolstoy, (shown above, ) and Dostoevsky. He also goes into the different stereotypes and roles serfs played in literature. Vucinich, Wayne S. “The Peasant in Literature.” The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. 231-262.

“Description of peasantry in the main works of Russian prose literature from the mid-nineteenth century to 1917″ (Thesis Paper) While mainly in Russian, this paper -a thesis work by Sophia Rosovsky- explores the description of peasantry in Russian prose literature from the second half of 1840s to 1917. All material is sub-divided into chapters; each chapter discusses an individual writer, except the fourth chapter which considers the raznochintzy writers. Rosovsky, Sophia. “Description of peasantry in the main works of Russian prose literature from the mid-nineteenth century to 1917.” MA diss., The University of British Columbia, 1973. Serfdom, Society, and the Art in Imperial Russia: The Pleasure and the Power In this interesting book, Stites analyses different aspects of the arts, from sheet music to opera. While the title might suggest so, he does not go into folk culture and serf art, but into a deep analysis of how the Russian elite interpreted serf and peasant life.

Moreover, he focuses on countryside elites that, in one way or another, tried to incorporate their perceptions and outside observations of peasant everyday-life into their works. Was it a homage? Was it a mockery? At the same time, the author discusses other factors, like social stature and rank distinction within the same elite classes. Stites, Richard. Serfdom, Society, and the Arts in Imperial Russia: The Pleasure and the Power. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005. Further Reading Lord and Peasant in Russia: from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century In this book Jerome Blum goes into depth on the dynamics of serfdom in Russia. Covering a rather large scope, this book was relevant upon its publication in 1961, marking the one hundredth anniversary of the emancipation of the Russian serfs, and it is a book still relevant today. Lord and Peasant is a rather large volume that explores the legal and social evolution of Russia’s predominantly agricultural population, the types of peasant status, and the multifaceted nature of the master-peasant relationship. Blum also makes the argument that it is necessary place serfs front and center in the study of Russian history.

This book is considered by many a cornerstone of Russian historiography. Blum, Jerome. Lord and Peasant in Russia: from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961. A Social History of the Russian Empire 1650-1825 This is a rather broad collection of the social history of Russia from before Peter the Great right through to the post-Napoleonic era. While Janet Hartley traces significant developments, she concentrates on two major themes: the relations of society and the state, and the relations between the different social groups. While this book does not focuses on serfdom, it does have segments that give a glimpse into peasant life. What this book does provide is a view of the bigger scheme of what Russian society was, and the observant reader might see how peasant fit into Imperial Russia as a whole. Hartley, Janet M.. A Social History of the Russian Empire 1650-1825. London: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.

The Russian Museum of Ethnography (Website) The website of the Russian Museum of Ethnography provides a decent display of the different cultures of the people in the countryside, from traditional agriculture to attire and customs. In addition, this website can serve as both a written and visual source of information on Russian peasants.

Question: What was abolished in Russia in 1861?
Answer: Serfdom